Si velis pacem, para bellum

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.’ The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

* H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

It was occupied by a moron and we came close to having yet another moron in it.

“The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.”

It’s “God’s masterpiece” but any attempt to capture it’s full beauty is “blasphemous”. I mean, really, the female body is sublime, and anybody claiming design would surely praise the design and, consequently, the designer, no? Why would a proud (and dammit, if the god of the bible isn’t a proud bastard, then I don’t know what pride is) be offended when someone decides to praise his work?

And, if he was offended, I would think a deity would be quite capable of saying so, instead of having old dolts in odd-looking clothes take legal action (which, in my experience, is a tortuously slow process). Surely a statement and a lightning bolt would convey the message both clearly and efficiently?

Note that I’m an atheist and I’m just trying to see it from a theistic POV. As usual, it’s not making much sense.

What does it do?
“It” (I presume that it uses bots or something) roams the net for blogs and archives them. Then, when you visit their homepage you get a a sort of slide-show/ tv channel that displays blogs long enough for you to decide if you want to read more or if you want to “blog surf” more.